Monday, September 08, 2008

Rogers Responds to the General

The General recently wrote Jay Rogers, the Executive Director of The Forerunner International Ministries about his call for an imprecatory prayer seeking John McCain's death should he be elected. Rogers, a big supporter of fellow pentecostal worshipper, Sarah Palin, hoped God would answer that prayer so that Palin could ascend to the presidency. The General suggested that it was wrong to state his plans in plain English and suggested he rewrite that piece of the post using God's Love Language. It's the babbling pentecostal worshipers like Palin do when they "speak in tongues." Here's Rogers's response:

Great letter! I could not have written a better parody myself. You know too much! That's both a good thing and a bad thing for you though -- depending on where you end up.

One thing that I'll admit is that I am stupid to speak my mind honestly as much as I do.

(May God bless me or curse me accordingly.)

Many Christians read the Bible where they encounter imprecatory prayer all the time. So if it is not "Christian" to pray such prayers then many of the Psalms are not "Christian" because they have David praying for Saul's death.

The purpose of the imprecatory Psalms is to remind us that God is sovereign and he "is angry with sinners every day" -- Psalm 7.

I am Protestant, but I think that the Roman Catholic church is right when they put ashes on people's foreheads each year with the admonition, "Remember man that thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return."

I am not deluded enough to think God kills people if I ask Him to. I have no power over people's lives. They are free to do as they please. But people need to be reminded that there are both temporal and eternal consequences for unrepentant sin.

God is your judge, not me, but I can literally "love" you to death by not telling you this. Real love is warning politicians and the public that votes for them of God's consequences for sin.

These six things does the LORD hate: yes, seven are an abomination to him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that devises wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaks lies, and he that sows discord among brothers. -- Proverbs 6:16-19

You may agree or disagree with this, but this is an example of an imprecatory proclamation. And doesn't it describe politics today?

It's amazing to me that so many people take great offense at the idea of imprecations -- the same imprecatory Psalms that called for King Saul's death also asked God to bless him if he repented. That is my attitude too toward our president whoever he or she will be.

It's funny because although I plan to vote for Chuck Baldwin, I am almost sure that because of Sarah, John McCain is going to win.

All I was trying to say in my blog is that she's next in line, so we might as well pray for John to repent and get it right OR (I wrote "AND" stupidly) that he dies quickly.

What the left is dreading would make me rejoice.

I don't think that's outrageous.

Many (conservatives in general) seeing Sarah and John standing together have thought the same thought, although they are not stupid enough to put it on a public blog forum as I have.

Doh!!

Maybe I have blogger's Tourette Syndrome?

Here's our new campaign slogan:

"Sarah -- one heartbeat away from the presidency!"

"3. Pray for John McCain's salvation and speedy death. (Google The Forerunner's articles on Imprecatory Prayer if you think this is harsh)."

But, just a moment ago, as I went back to the post to get a link, I noticed that you changed number three to say:

3. Pray for John McCain's salvation and pray specific imprecatory prayers if he fails to pro-actively defend the sanctity of human life.

It was a mistake to make that change. Think about your audience. They aren't the most imaginative bunch, and they're pretty much opposed to book learnin' in any form that doesn't include the Bible--I mean for heaven's sake, they believe God flooded the earth because demonic giants were after our white women and that Noah was too lazy to build an ark large enough to save the dinosaurs. Do you really think they're capable of understand that "specific imprecatory prayer" means "ask God to smite McCain's sorry ass?" I don't think so.

Christians understand it if they've ever read the Bible. Most don't read the Bible though. This is one place where you are incorrect.

There is a lot of ugly stuff in the Bible that is impossible to understand until you know a God who is holy and just -- as well as being a God of love and forgiveness.

I understand why you might have had second thoughts about calling for McCain's death. It makes you appear a bit crazy to just about everyone but the Palins and their fellow dominionists. But I think there's a way to get that message out to your target audience without anyone else catching on. All you need to do is "type in fingers" using God's love language. That way, only the righteous will understand it.

Here's how I'd write it:

3. Pray for John McCain's salvation and boogaboogula nawdami gabba gabba hey! (Google The Forerunner's articles on Imprecatory Prayer if you think this is harsh).

Of course, you may prefer to substitute "Awop-bop-a-loo-mop alop-bam-boom" for "gabba gabba hey." I made my choice based on a desire for brevity, but it's just a stylistic difference, really. Both phrases basically mean the same thing, the only difference being the size of the anvil. That said, expressing God's love language by "typing in fingers" is new to me--I prefer the results I get when I hungrily apply my tongue in the feverish expression my own personal love language--so my written translation skills may not be as developed as yours.

170 comments:

Is he calling out our Dear Lord & Savior? Has he ever seen Bonobos going at it with dinner guests? Or slugs doing the nasty? Methinks he invites the Lord's quizzical glances when he mentions the Deity of the Fertile Crescent and His preoccupation with sex!

I'm sick to the back teeth of ignorant deluded greedy stupid cunning hypocritical egoistic know-nothing fucking asshole 'pastors' who wouldn't know God if She bit them on the ass, spruiking their shit at the world.Goddam deluded moran. If there is imprecatory prayer, Roger is dead, painfully and slowly.

I've only been reading the atheist blogosphere since the movie Expelled came out. It's the same tired stuff over and over. I think I can summarize every single thing I've read in seven points:

1. Decrying the supposed stupidity and lack of intelligence on the part of Christians without ever condescending to a focused debate on worldview issues.

2. The use of invective, profanity and ad hominem attacks when refuting Christians, and then ironically acting extremely insulted when the tables are turned.

3. Focusing on the supposed hypocrisies of Christianity, while never owning their own behavior or the inhuman criminal history of recent atheistic societies.

4. An obsession with sexually demeaning comments bordering on harassment in an attempt to assault the moral sensibilities and sexual ethics of the Bible.

5. An obsession with irrelevant details.

6. Frequent accusations of lying and dishonesty even while purposefully interpreting Christian writings and biblical theology in a skewed and satirical manner.

7. An irrational insistence that experimental science is the only form of rational thought. In other words, a belief in metaphysical naturalism (the idea that all truth is knowable through naturalistic experimentation and observation) rather than traditional scientific rationalism (the idea that science can only observe, reproduce and describe natural events according to an imperfect paradigm.)

Jay Rogers, you are soooooo right! Now let's tell these deluded fools how rib-women, talking snakes, talking burning bushes, 3-day-old dead bodies being reanimated, and drowning 99.9% of humanity are ALL evidence of a perfect eternal god who created a temporal imperfect universe! Praise!

1. The word for "rib" in Hebrew has a more generic meaning here. It means literally "side" not rib. Most modern translations have "side." The woman(adamah)was fashioned out of the man's (adam's) side. Whether this is literal or not, it has a deeper symbolic meaning. The man and the woman are a foreshadowing of Christ and the church. At the cross, Christ's side was wounded and from this our salvation was made possible -- hence the Church, the Bride of Christ was formed.

2. I believe the serpent (Genesis 3or the dragon (Revelation 12) is a metaphor for the devil. I believe the devil is a fallen angel. I belienve there is evil in the world. I know that that deluded whiner Herr Dawkins likes to make fun of the "walkin', talkin' snake." I always laugh when I hear that. I don't believe in a literal talking snake.

3. The burning bush is a symbol of the Holiness of God. I have no idea if it was a literal burning bush or not. I might assume it was, but the Holiness of God is the focus here.

4. I believe that a flood destroyed all of humanity roughly 5000 years ago. In fact, there is no recorded history that contradicts this prior to this time. If a continuous civilization existed to this time, we would have alternate records. But every civilization records a flood in its ancient history. Whether it was truly a worldwide flood or not is a matter of speculation. There was a catastrophic flood. The question you have to ask is: If there is no basis in fact, then why are these flood stories universal?

5. I believe Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to hundreds of eyewitnesses in His resurrected body.

Why did you leave out the virgin birth and the incarnation?

I believe in that too.

The denial of these last two events in the life of Jesus as "impossible" is due to a strict reliance on "metaphysical naturalism" -- the denial of the supernatural or the belief that all in the universe that exists or is possible to know has to be explained by know scientific laws.

It is much more rational to rely on "scientific naturalism" and hold out the possibility that there may be other phenomena that exist independently of the natural universe.

1. The word for "rib" in Hebrew has a more generic meaning here. It means literally "side" not rib. Most modern translations have "side." The woman(adamah)was fashioned out of the man's (adam's) side.

Tomayto, tomahto.

Whether this is literal or not, it has a deeper symbolic meaning. The man and the woman are a foreshadowing of Christ and the church. At the cross, Christ's side was wounded and from this our salvation was made possible -- hence the Church, the Bride of Christ was formed.

Special, emotional pleading to excuse or distract from your preior admission that the actual passage is either too vague and ambiguous, or just plain ludicrous.

2. I believe the serpent (Genesis 3or the dragon (Revelation 12) is a metaphor for the devil. I believe the devil is a fallen angel. I belienve there is evil in the world. I know that that deluded whiner Herr Dawkins likes to make fun of the "walkin', talkin' snake." I always laugh when I hear that. I don't believe in a literal talking snake.

More admissions that the actual passage is either too vague and ambiguous, or just plain ludicrous.

3. The burning bush is a symbol of the Holiness of God. I have no idea if it was a literal burning bush or not. I might assume it was, but the Holiness of God is the focus here.

More admissions that the actual passage is either too vague and ambiguous, or just plain ludicrous, followed by special, emotional pleading to distract from said admission.

4. I believe that a flood destroyed all of humanity roughly 5000 years ago. In fact, there is no recorded history that contradicts this prior to this time. If a continuous civilization existed to this time, we would have alternate records. But every civilization records a flood in its ancient history. Whether it was truly a worldwide flood or not is a matter of speculation. There was a catastrophic flood. The question you have to ask is: If there is no basis in fact, then why are these flood stories universal?

According to geologists, the flood story has no basis in fact and is a physcial impossibility. And if the story is universal, then the flood couldnt have killed everyone save Noah's family, cause there would have been nobody around to record the information. Localized, non-globe-encompassing floods happen all the time and in every region populated by humans, and over time, stories like these become legends and get exagerrated like when you play the telephone game. So the "universal" nature of the flood stories is actually an argument AGAINST, not for, the biblical globe-encompassing flood story.

5. I believe Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to hundreds of eyewitnesses in His resurrected body.

A mere repetition of the silly Christian claim that I listed earlier. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.

Why did you leave out the virgin birth and the incarnation?

I believe in that too.

Cause I only casually wrote the post. It was by no means comprehensive. If I wanted to I could also have mentioned the dire warnings against blending fabrics or mixing crops in fields, etc.

Do you also believe that Jesus appears in toast, sandwiches, and freeway underpasses?

The denial of these last two events in the life of Jesus as "impossible" is due to a strict reliance on "metaphysical naturalism" -- the denial of the supernatural or the belief that all in the universe that exists or is possible to know has to be explained by know scientific laws.

It is much more rational to rely on "scientific naturalism" and hold out the possibility that there may be other phenomena that exist independently of the natural universe.

You've either never heard of, or are deliberately ignoring, Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor only applies if it is more unlikely that God exists than if He does exist.

The mere existence of a universe that could not have existed prior to ts beginning, implies a creative force that is more powerful than the known universe. A force more powerful than the known universe implies the continual existence of this force.

The only way out of that conclusion is to deny that the universe had a beginning.

This is one question I've never heard answered:

From an atheistic perspective, what existed prior to the material universe that brought everything as we know it into being?

I would respond to the charge of special pleading that atheism require special pleading but theism does not. Theism just proposes a logical solution to the existential paradox.

What is the Existential Paradox?

I will here explain the existential paradox -- the problem of existence -- in the rational terms of physical science.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe had a beginning in that the universe could never have existed in a time prior to a state of total available energy.

Why?

Simply because the First Law of Thermodynamics shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The first law states that the total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant and neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed.

Science cannot explain why matter cannot be created or destroyed. We just know that this is impossible in a purely natural system governed by physical laws. Matter and energy may be converted one into another, but beyond that, energy simply has "no place to go."

The second law states that the quantity of available energy is decreasing.

Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy is progressively greater until, finally, we reach the beginning point, where available energy equals total energy.

Time could go back no further than this. At this point, both energy and time must have come into existence in our known universe.

One might hypothesize that the universe was simply "still" at this point and had no beginning. However, this is impossible, since movement is always taking place wherever there is matter even if it is the movement of kinetic energy at the molecular level.

One might also hypothesize that it is meaningless to talk about a "before" in time when the universe was compressed into state of total energy because at this point in time, as time and matter are relative to each other, eternity existed in a moment.

While this is true, it doesn't solve the problem of there being a system with all the available energy in the universe being compressed into a single point and space in time.

The scientific conundrum from a purely metaphysical naturalistic point of view is that energy cannot create itself, or come into existence from non-existence by itself.

Something else besides the known universe must exist in order for the known universe to exist.

The most scientific and logical conclusion we could possibly state is that:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

The atheist will not accept this conclusion, however.

He instead hypothesizes that either:

1. Some natural law canceling out the Second Law prevailed far back in time.

2. Some natural law canceling out the Second Law prevails far out in space.

3. Some force more powerful that all the energy in the known universe brought our universe into being.

When he makes the first two assumptions, however, he is denying his own metaphysical naturalism, which says that all things can be explained in terms of presently observable laws and processes.

In the third assumption, the atheist is only denying the inevitable, that someone or something created the known universe.

In all three cases, the atheist is really resorting to creationism, but just refuses to acknowledge a personal Creator God.

If the atheist would be epistemologically honest in admitting this, Christian theists could have some respect for their position and meaningful dialog would result.

But since this is not the case, all the atheist can do is attack belief in God as something he lacks. He can never defend his on position without resorting to the convoluted and contradictory argument that attacks the supernatural as something that is not naturally possible.

He is correct. However, the universe itself according to its own self contained physical laws requires a supernatural cause.

I will here explain the existential paradox -- the problem of existence -- in the rational terms of physical science.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe had a beginning in that the universe could never have existed in a time prior to a state of total available energy.

Why?

Simply because the First Law of Thermodynamics shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The first law states that the total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant and neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed.

Science cannot explain why matter cannot be created or destroyed. We just know that this is impossible in a purely natural system governed by physical laws. Matter and energy may be converted one into another, but beyond that, energy simply has "no place to go."

The second law states that the quantity of available energy is decreasing.

Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy is progressively greater until, finally, we reach the beginning point, where available energy equals total energy.

Time could go back no further than this. At this point, both energy and time must have come into existence in our known universe.

One might hypothesize that the universe was simply "still" at this point and had no beginning. However, this is impossible, since movement is always taking place wherever there is matter even if it is the movement of kinetic energy at the molecular level.

One might also hypothesize that it is meaningless to talk about a "before" in time when the universe was compressed into state of total energy because at this point in time, as time and matter are relative to each other, eternity existed in a moment.

While this is true, it doesn't solve the problem of there being a system with all the available energy in the universe being compressed into a single point and space in time.

The scientific conundrum from a purely metaphysical naturalistic point of view is that energy cannot create itself, or come into existence from non-existence by itself.

Time is temporal, the universe (or matter and energy) is not. Time is merely a property of a given state of the universe. Time has a beginning, the universe does not. Therefore your musings on time are not applicable nor relevant to the question of whether the universe has a creator or not. The universe, furthermore, is the totality of existence, and you even admitted that the universe contains the total available energy. Yet you seem to think that a God can be inserted prior to the beginning of time, and somehow "create" or kickstart the universe, which according to the first law of thermodynamics, has no beginning nor end.

Something else besides the known universe must exist in order for the known universe to exist.

But the universe is the totality of everything existant. If you are to start invoking things that exist outside of the totality of existence, then I suppose I can start invoking four-cornered circles and married bachelors.

But in all seriousness, if there were indeed a being that existed outside the universe itself, why should we assume that that being could have any effect, or interact in any way with the universe? If one wants to play in the universe, one must abide by its rules. In other words, for something to interact with a universe, it must conform with the laws of the universe, and those laws preclude the possibility of a creator-being, especially one that contains its own energy that is held seperately from the total amount of energy available in the unvierse.

The most scientific and logical conclusion we could possibly state is that:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Ahhh, yes. There is nothing more logical than proposing a being which resides outside the universe that contained its own energy source independently of the total amount of energy in the universe itself. Riiiiiiight.

The atheist will not accept this conclusion, however.

He instead hypothesizes that either:

1. Some natural law canceling out the Second Law prevailed far back in time.

2. Some natural law canceling out the Second Law prevails far out in space.

3. Some force more powerful that all the energy in the known universe brought our universe into being.

I have never heard of any of these three propositions from any atheist physicist or cosmologist or other scientist. I think this is a strawman. Could you perhaps provide a source from an atheist familiar with physics for any of these three claims?

If the atheist would be epistemologically honest in admitting this, Christian theists could have some respect for their position and meaningful dialog would result.

It is a good thing then that atheists don't have much concern for the amount of "respect" afforded to them by people who believe in an invisible sky daddy and whose churches are being converted into coffeehouses and condominiums due to the thinning of the flock and a corresponding reduction in tithes.

However, the universe itself according to its own self contained physical laws requires a supernatural cause.

Those laws are indeed self-contained, which means that anything wishing to interact with the universe must conform to those same laws. This presents problems for the concept of a creator which I detailed earlier.

I am not a physicist, but I know that time is measured as a function of how matter (space) interacts with movement (energy). That much is a no-brainer. Even ancient philosophers such as St. Augustine recognized that.

It would be good to simply admit that there is no natural or sceintific explanation of how the universe came into being.

I don't think there is a physicist alive who would state that any recent model is proven.

Wherever there is matter there is time

The best counter-argument you could offer would be to postulate an infinitely existing universe (one with no beginning and no end) that always existed.

You could just claim that but admit that you don't have an explanation of how that is possible or how the universe could have existed prior to the time of total available energy.

This is the reason why physicists are torn between the model of the big bang and an expanding/contracting universe.

If they argue for the big bang they run into the problem of a cause for the big bang which contradicts the First Law.

If they argue that the universe eventually collapses, they run into a problem etropy being converted back int available energy, which is a contradiction to the Second Law.

The other fallacy in your argument is that you are assuming that I am arguing that the God of the Bible is a material energy source who simply exists independently of the laws of material universe.

I am not arguing that God is an energy source. If so, I'd run into the same problem of an existential beginning for God.

The idea of a Creator God has occurred to every school of philosophy because it solves the problem of cause and effect. If everything in the universe is determined by a cause eventually there had to be a first cause.

But this first cause has to be SUPER natural.

And unless all the models of physics ever proposed are wrong, the universe was created by a SUPER natural force or being.

You should first admit that there must be something outside the natural world -- that is greater and more powerful than what we can see -- otherwise the natural world could not run according to its own laws.

If time had a beginning then the material universe had a beginning. But in order for the MATERIAL universe to exist, there must be some type of existence other than the material.

Whether you want to admit the Creator of the Universe is the God of the Bible is a secondary issue.

It was mildly entertaining to read Jay who believes himself no doubt to be god's little solider spreading the fertile words for the heathens we must surely be. When you say "The only way out of that conclusion is to deny that the universe had a beginning." I have to ask - which one? The tiny refrigerator magnet that your ideas seek to grasp or the one that I see that mocks any explanation? Explain a paving stone, Jay! (You will.) Why do you have to be right? I would submit that like a teenager you are filled with fear and aggression. So filled with fear that you can't let go and dance! It is a poor and shallow world you live in where only you know the rules. Has it occurred to you that the guy sitting next to you in the pew may have a different idea of the divine? Could it be he's right and you're driving a chariot straight to hell? "Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important." and you are just such a one, Jay. So you take out your aggression on all of us to demonstrate that you are the one who knows. You're hoping that one of us will validate your limited imagination and surface reasonings with a magical seal of approval. Will this make you right or will you always have a doubt gnawing your heels until the cloven foot strikes and all scores are settled? Unfortunately, I don't care to be right - so I can't offer you what you so badly need. But, I'll be sure and raise a glass to you! A toast for Jay while he smugly waits for the rest of us to be toast!

1. I agree that the universe mocks explanation -- that is why it is arrogant to state without doubt that there is no God.

2. I agree that my ideas may be wrong. I may even be lost and going to hell. I think true Christians must live with great humility and the fear of God who has the power to send us to hell.

3. I disagree that it is not important for you to be right. I haven't entered into insults here, but you have. I haven't claimed my opponents are "smug" or full of "fear" and "aggression." But you have. I have kept this on the level of civil debate, but you won't.

4. The atheist syndrome is to rail and mock at their opponents -- not simply their ideas but to belittle those who believe. Atheists are the ones who are obsessed with going to hell.

1. I agree that the universe mocks explanation -- that is why it is ridiculous to make claims that only serve to divide people. In my religion, and I am a religious person, we must all be saved for even one of us to be saved.

2. I agree that your ideas or mine may be wrong but as long as we accept responsibility for them and leave everyone to work out their own answers then who cares. I'd rather judge you ('cause living IS judging) by what you do and not every random thought that rattles around in your head.

3. Because it is not important for me to be right I have no desire to convince, cajole or terrorize you into accepting my conclusions. Can you say the same?

4. Hell is right here, baby. It is people who are hungry in the midst of plenty. It is children killed to advance a political or religious point. It is slavish adherence to abstract ideas at the cost of real human lives. That's hell. That's where we live now. I don't look forward to a better death - I look for a better life. Master Kung (Confucius) said: "We do not yet know of this life - how can we then speculate on what may come after?"

I'm not railing, Jay, and my diagnoses was only to alert you to fundamental errors for your sake and those around you. You can learn to control your desire to rule the world. You start by realizing that what is in everyone's else head is not your problem. Be responsible for your own thoughts. Don't try to plant ideas, try to serve as an example of what a good idea can accomplish.

"Someone has got to rule." - Jay. And here I thought we lived in a democratic republic? "Master thyself and others shall ye beare." - Pope. So it all comes down to you have nothing but a desire to have your way and you're willing to pray for someone's death to get it. "Everywhere I looked for the great men - and I found only the apes of their ideals." - Neitzsche. I'm hoping we get some leaders willing to look out for all of us, whatever our religions or hat sizes. We used to be bound together as Americans until it become more important to seize power for your own little group than to be an American. You make me ashamed for Christians, Jay.

I don't believe that. God is already moved. Imprecatory prayer just proclaims God's anger toward the wicked. That's all it is. It's a public reading of the Psalms of David.

Further, there is no such thing as neutrality in politics. Every leader has a policy that favors one group over another.

And again, you are caricaturizing my postion. Christian Reconstructionists don't believe in "seizing power" -- that's what liberal socialists do. We believe in spiritual regeneration, personal transformation and reformation at the grass-roots.

We believe in decreasing the size of government in favor of self-government.

The problem is that the liberal sees politics in terms of statism (hence their constant appeal to Nietzsche, Hegel and their ilk). To the liberal statist, the civil government is God walking on earth. The state exists to "give people rights" and multiply rights hitherto unthought of.

To the Christian, rights are a gift from God. Government exists only to protect these rights and to punish evil doers.

To the liberal, the state is the Savior and they are constantly looking for a messianic leader.

Therefore, the liberal cannot see the Christian agenda in politics as anything other than "seizing power" because that is his model.

The liberal claims to want justice for all, but talks down ("You Christians ought to be ashamed of yourselves for getting involved in politics! Aaarghhh!") to anyone who would impose a policy that deviates from the liberal worldview.

Please go back and search everything I said, Jay. I never talked about Christians being responsible for YOUR words and actions.

You remind me of the story by Stanislaw Lem about the human spy on the world of robots. He would purchase stuffed human dolls and tear them to shreds like every other good robot to show his loyalty to the robot clan but at night he had to sneak out of town to eat. It was not until he met the main computer that he learned that every other person on the planet was exactly like him and that the real robots had rusted out years before.

I recognize nothing in you of the message of peace that I've always been told is Christianity. If the devil wanted a representative he couldn't find a better one than you, Jay. But since I have only been speaking to you because I saw you thrashing around in hell I'll conclude my warning and let you scream again about whatever the big bad others are doing to you rather than concentrating on the flaws you should correct in your own heart. Were I to pray for your death I know I would suffer regardless of whether my prayer was heard. So I pray, Jay, for your happiness and the happiness of your loved ones who are in danger from the hell you carry around inside you.

I can see that you are an expert at your field! I am launching a website soon, and your information will be very useful for me.. Thanks for all your help and wishing you all the success in your business Thanks for all your help and wishing you all the success in your business Please come visit my site landscape service when you got time.

Thank you so much!!cheap polo shirts men'ssweate,Burberry Polo Shirts lacoste sweater, ralph lauren Columbia Jackets,ski clothing. Free Shipping, PayPal Payment. Enjoy your shopping experience on mensclothingus.com.You can find the father who desire fashionable, intellectual mens clothing simultaneouslyGod bless you!I really agree with your opinions.Also,there are some new fashion things here,gillette razor blades.gillette mach3 razor bladesfor men.As for ladies,gillette venus razor blades must the best gift for you in summer,gillette fusion blades are all the best choice for you.Fantastic!God bless you!Meanwhile,you can visit my ,we have the highest quality but the lowest price fashion products wholesale from China.Here are the most popular China Wholesale products for all of you.You can visit .Also the is a great choice for you.

Charlestoncheap columbia jackets. turned a pair of double plays to do the trick. spyder jacketsThe had at least one runner on in every inning but the first and outhit the RiverDogs by a 12-6 margin Lawal should be a focal point of the Yellow cheap polo shirts along with highly touted newcomer, 6-9 Derrick Favors, rated as the No. 1 power forward on the ESPNU 100. The Yellow Jackets

I found your blog on google and read a few Thanks for the information you mentioned here, I'm looking forward to see your future posts. Cheers !! Please come visit my site Orange California Business Directory when you got time.

Hello mate, I want to thank you for this nice blog. Would you mind telling me some secrets for a succesful blog ? Which could attract some visitors than it normally does. Please visit my site Long Beach Business Directory when you got time.

I just love it ..... well i don't have any doubt about your articles... your articles are awesome... Honestly you are simply the best.Thanks for sharing this with us. Please come visit my site Glendale Yellow Page Business Directory when you got time.

You share valuable information and excellent design you got here! I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts and time into the stuff you post!! Thumbs up. Please come visit my site Phoenix Yellow Page Business Directory when you got time.

I was thinking of looking up some of them newspaper websites, but am glad I came here instead. Although glad is not quite the right word… let me just say I needed this after the incessant chatter in the media, and am grateful to you for articulating something many of us are feeling - even from distant shores. Please come visit my site Philadelphia Yellow Page Business Directory when you got time.

I usually don’t leave comments!!! Trust me! But I liked your blog…especially this post! Would you mind terribly if I put up a backlink from my site to your site? Please come visit my site Atlanta Business Directory when you got time. Thanks.

Good tips that are worth checking and these tips are also worth suggesting to friends. Thanks for sharing. Great stuff! . I am new to seo, trying to visit more seo blogs for guides and tips. You can be friends with me. Please come visit my site Garland Yellow Page Business Directory when you got time. Thanks.

You share valuable information and excellent design you got here! I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts and time into the stuff you post!! Thumbs up. Please come visit my site Philadelphia Business Directory when you got time.

You share valuable information and excellent design you got here! I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts and time into the stuff you post!! Thumbs up. Please come visit my site Philadelphia Yellow Page Business Directory when you got time.

I usually don’t leave comments!!! Trust me! But I liked your blog…especially this post! Would you mind terribly if I put up a backlink from my site to your site? Please come visit my site Newfoundland, yellow pages give me any valuable feedbacks.

I forgot about those! Maybe they look good w/ the right outfit? I didn't like skinny jeans when I first saw them. lol. Please come visit my site Raleigh Business Services And Classifieds when you got time.

This is just another reason why I like your website. I like your style of writing you tell your stories without out sending us to 5 other sites to complete the story. Please come visit my site California CA Phone Directory when you got time.

This is just another reason why I like your website. I like your style of writing you tell your stories without out sending us to 5 other sites to complete the story. Please come visit my site San Jose California CA Directory when you got time.

I am not really sure if best practices have emerged around things like that, but I am sure that your great job is clearly identifed. I was wondering if you offer any subscription to your RSS feeds as I would be very interested and can’t find any link to subscribe here. Please come visit my site Dallas Phone Book when you got time.

I am not really sure if best practices have emerged around things like that, but I am sure that your great job is clearly identifed. I was wondering if you offer any subscription to your RSS feeds as I would be very interested and can’t find any link to subscribe here. Please come visit my site City Guide Dallas when you got time.

This is very interesting information. I am doing some research for a class in school. and i liked the post. do you know where I can find other information regarding this? I am finding other information on this but nothing that I can use really in my paper for my final. do you have any suggestions?

This is very interesting information. I am doing some research for a class in school. and i liked the post. do you know where I can find other information regarding this? I am finding other information on this but nothing that I can use really in my paper for my final. do you have any suggestions?

There are certainly a lot of details like that to take into consideration. That’s a great point to bring up. I offer the thoughts above as general inspiration but clearly there are questions like the one you bring up where the most important thing will be working in honest good faith.There are certainly a lot of details like that to take into consideration. That’s a great point to bring up. I offer the thoughts above as general inspiration but clearly there are questions like the one you bring up where the most important thing will be working in honest good faith.

this is Valuable information and excellent design you got here! I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts and time into the stuff you post! It's amazing to me that so many people take great offense at the idea of imprecations